ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Are we ready to commence?
MS LOCKHAT: Yes Chairperson. We will commence with the evidence of Mr Naude.
MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, I was busy asking questions yesterday, I have finished asking whatever I wanted to know, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WESSELS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I have a few questions if you would permit me.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may put them.
CHARL NAUDE: (s.u.o)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Naude, these events took place quite a while back?
MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And one can accept that your memory would be influenced by this long lapse of time?
MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: The reason why I am asking is because my clients Brigadier Cronje and Captain Hechter have both given evidence and if you have read the record, you will see that with regard to certain aspects, they are not very certain or clear about these aspects because these events took place so long back?
MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Then I would like to ask you a few questions with regard to the evidence of my clients. In Bundle 2(B) the evidence of Brigadier Cronje begins on page 499 onto page 500. There Brigadier Cronje testified that at a certain stage, he has been contacted by you and you asked him for a memorandum with regard to the Ribeiro's, and that is in line with your evidence of yesterday, do you agree with me?
MR NAUDE: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you testified that various meetings took place where you were present and he was present and targets were discussed, including the Ribeiro's. That was your evidence?
MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: So at the stage that you asked him for the memorandum, it was the stage when the decision had been made to go ahead with the operation?
MR NAUDE: Chairperson, I am not precisely certain about when the request was lodged for that, but I do accept that it would have been roundabout then.
MR DU PLESSIS: He testified that after you had requested the memorandum, he gave Captain Hechter the order to keep an eye on a member of your staff who would then compile the memorandum and that the file would be made available to a member of your staff. Do you have any commentary regarding that, is that correct?
MR NAUDE: I cannot comment on what Hechter or what Cronje said to Hechter. All that I can say is that I received a file with certain information.
MR DU PLESSIS: Well, let me ask you the following, do you agree with the evidence that a member of your staff would have received certain information from the Security Police for you, do you know about that or can you not recall?
MR NAUDE: It is possible, I just can't recall it.
MR DU PLESSIS: But it is possible, because you see Captain Hechter also gave evidence regarding that and his evidence appears on page 461 of Bundle 2(e), actually page 462.
He says that the file was in his possession but that a certain person with a white moustache which looked like a Scot and he thinks this person's name was Paddy, and this person could have been a Major, frequently visited Hechter's office and collected information which ultimately would have been conveyed to you.
So it is possible that you can't recall it, but that it did take place like that?
MR NAUDE: I can tell you that I didn't have a person by the name of Paddy in my organisation. I can say that with surety.
MR DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter also wasn't sure about the person's name, but let me ask you the following. It is possible, you do concede that it is possible that a member of your staff regularly communicated with Captain Hechter for information about the Ribeiro's and submitted a memorandum to you?
MR NAUDE: The reason why I say that, or the reason why I am going to make the following statement is that my people were supposed and they had to operate under cover and I would not have sent one of my staff members to police office to fetch information.
I personally went to the police, Northern Transvaal Headquarters, but I can't recall at this stage that I sent any of my staff members there, except for Mr Robey accompanying me to the Headquarters.
If it was him, then it is so, it is possible.
MR DU PLESSIS: And Captain Hechter also gave evidence on page 462 that he saw the preparations which were made with regard to the operation, so he also visited your offices?
You were probably not involved yourself when he was there, but he gave evidence that he was impressed with the operation which was being planned, that aerial photographs had been taken by Special Forces, that there were photographs which were taken and that a tremendous amount of money had been spent on the planning of the operation. Any commentary?
MR NAUDE: I cannot comment on that, I think that we will hear about the process of the operation, I don't know where Hechter was involved, I never saw him myself. He was involved on the day of the operation, that is when I met him at the Palm Hotel, or the Palm Inn Hotel and from there we travelled together, but with regards to the rest of his involvement, I have no comment.
MR DU PLESSIS: But you were not involved on a daily basis with the collection of information?
MR NAUDE: No.
MR DU PLESSIS: So then you would not necessarily know this?
MR NAUDE: Yes.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: May I interpose there Mr Du Plessis. Mr Naude, I got the impression yesterday that one of the reasons why you requested the file to be given to Mr Robey was to be able to study the aerial photographs which were in the file. If you now concede that it is possible that the photographs were taken after Mr Hechter had been approached, where would this put the aerial photographs that you had testified that were in the files, yesterday?
MR NAUDE: There were aerial photographs in the file, and there were photographs of the houses of the Ribeiro's, and there was a street map and there was a description, a street description in the file that we got.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But I got the impression yesterday that the reason why you wanted to peruse the file was to get the photographs, the aerial photographs which were inside the file?
MR NAUDE: That is right, yes.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Why then go to the elaborate extent of spending so much money as testified to by Captain Hechter, in getting those photographs which were already in the file?
MR NAUDE: Chairperson, according to my knowledge, only R2 000 was spent on the operation. Furthermore, no money was spent.
Except the usual fuel costs and so forth which was involved with the day to day use of vehicles, but furthermore no funds were spent on the operation.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But do I then understand you to concede that the aerial photographs were taken after you had had sight of the file?
MR NAUDE: According to my knowledge, the aerial photograph was within the file. We did not undertake any flights or take any aerial photo's after the time. No aeroplanes were tasked and no other aerial photographs were taken after the time.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So you do not agree with the evidence of Mr Hechter?
MR NAUDE: Yes, I don't agree with it.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you. You may proceed Mr Du Plessis.
ADV DE JAGER: So you say that no aerial photographs were taken after the time? When you became involved with the matter, the aerial photographs were already in existence?
MR NAUDE: When I received the file, there was an aerial photograph in the file with this black square which was drawn around the house, there was a street plan with a black square drawn around the house. There were also photo's which were taken from the street of the house, so that we could identify the house. There was a small description of the house number and street name which was recorded on the map, I think.
So that aerial photograph was already in the file, we had no other aerial photographs taken whatsoever. It would take a number of weeks to task an aeroplane and to process aerial photographs. Physically it was simply impossible and I know that there was no tasking for taking aerial photographs.
ADV DE JAGER: Not by your team?
MR NAUDE: Not at all, I don't know anything about that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Naude, who from Special Forces were involved in this operation, it was you, Mr Robey and who else?
MR NAUDE: And Mr Vorster.
MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Vorster, are those the only persons who were involved?
MR NAUDE: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: And the planning of the operation?
MR NAUDE: It was me and Robey who undertook 90 percent of the planning. Vorster was informed regarding his tasks during the operation.
MR DU PLESSIS: And Hechter was not involved?
MR NAUDE: I beg your pardon, it was Vlietstra.
MR DU PLESSIS: Hechter had not been involved in the planning?
MR NAUDE: No.
MR DU PLESSIS: So it was Special Forces who planned the operation and it was also Special Forces who arranged for the two Angolans to come to South Africa and to be used during the operation?
MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And according to your evidence, the only involvement of the Police was Hechter who travelled with you in the vehicle?
MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct. Throughout the time we liaised and said well, we are this far, we have done this, we have done that and so forth. There was constant liaison with Captain Hechter, but he was not physically involved in say for example, now we are travelling together and so forth.
We simply informed him.
MR DU PLESSIS: That is in line with Captain Hechter's evidence. Very well, you say that you and Captain Hechter were in Mamelodi in a car on the day of the event?
MR NAUDE: As I have said, at the Palm Inn we co-ordinated that everybody would gather and so that we could make sure that everything was ready. After that, me and Captain Hechter drove and we reached an open piece of land on the south eastern side of Mamelodi where we stopped and waited under a tree.
Captain Hechter heard the shots, I didn't hear it and he said they are shooting now. We waited for a while and I objected very strongly that he drove into the house and examined the house. I told him that we should stay away from there. We had gone to all the trouble of not making the operation traceable and there he was driving in a police vehicle to the place. That is what happened.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, you see on page 468 of his evidence, he did not give evidence that you were with him in the vehicle and the question was never put to him, but he did not give evidence to the fact that you were with him in the vehicle.
MR NAUDE: Chairperson, might I just ask whether or not he testified that he drove?
MR DU PLESSIS: Well, let me read his evidence on page 468 to you. I drove passed the particular address and it seemed that I drove passed there just after the elimination had taken place.
There was a big crowd of people around the house and there was an ambulance at that stage. I drove up to the side of the ambulance and I saw that the people were very tense and excited and I then went directly to the police station.
It was about a kilometre or so from Dr Ribeiro's home. I drove there directly, went to the Branch Commander and I told him do you know that Dr Ribeiro has been shot, there are problems, you had better get out there.
I then made radio contact with the Reaction Unit and I also contacted Murder and Robbery, or I contacted my Radio Control and told them to get Reaction Unit and Murder and Robbery, the fingerprint people, all the necessary units to come and investigate the matter.
At that stage I made as if I knew nothing. I then went to the Commanding Officer and the Branch Commanding Officer to the scene. The Branch Commander got out of the car and they started investigating the scene. They started picking up cartridges and I said no stop, you are interfering with the evidence, put the cartridges back. I then contacted the Safety Service Officer, he was on duty at the time, and I then withdrew from the scene. I also withdrew from Mamelodi.
So if you were there, you would have driven with to the Branch Commander, you would have been there when he had these discussions and you would have driven back with him, to the scene?
MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Is that how you recall it?
MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct. And that is why I was completely upset because he was driving around on the scene. I didn't want to be there, I wanted to get away from the scene so that we couldn't be connected to the incident.
MR DU PLESSIS: So it may be possible that Captain Hechter cannot remember that you accompanied him?
MR NAUDE: It is possible.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Naude, Brigadier Cronje was questioned about where the order came from and he specifically gave evidence that he did not know precisely from where the order came. However on page 357 of Bundle 2(E) he said the following - that the command came from Trevits. Naude said that he had to report back to his General, who was Gen Joubert. Would you agree with that?
MR NAUDE: Repeatedly we have said that, but I don't know anything about TREVITS. I don't know about the existence thereof, I simply knew that I was to report back to the General.
MR DU PLESSIS: So you cannot argue that his impression that the order came from TREVITS, is incorrect?
MR NAUDE: I cannot dispute that.
MR DU PLESSIS: And we knew how TREVITS operated, and that meant that membership on TREVITS consisted of the Army and the Police?
MR NAUDE: At that stage I was in a unit which operated under a very deep cover. We were not involved with the State Security Council and TREVITS and other such organisations, so I don't know about the existence of these things.
MR DU PLESSIS: What I am trying to achieve is to tell you what the evidence of Brigadier Cronje was regarding how this order came from above.
But he said that his perception was that it came from TREVITS?
MR NAUDE: Well, I cannot dispute that because I don't know about the existence of TREVITS.
MR DU PLESSIS: And he also said that there was liaison with Gen Joubert and that that meant that Gen Joubert knew that the Ribeiro's were a target, and that is also in line with your evidence?
MR NAUDE: I cannot dispute that. Gen Joubert did tell me so, but I drew the inference that this emerged from a discussion or during a meeting which was held between him and Cronje and Moller, but where this came from, I cannot say at this stage.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Naude, one final aspect. There was evidence given by Colonel Flip Loots who handled the file on the Ribeiro's and handled it more frequently than Brigadier Cronje, as well as Captain Hechter, he gave evidence about the file.
Brigadier Cronje testified first and then he was questioned in detail regarding the contents of the file, and he couldn't remember it because his evidence was that he saw the file once a year as one out of 10 000 other files, but more detailed evidence was given by Captain Hechter and Colonel Loots.
The evidence was and I would like to put this to you, the evidence was that there was one file concerning Mr and Mrs Ribeiro and that there was information about their activities? There were informer reports and all sorts of other information about their activities. If this was the evidence, then you will have to agree with me that that which was given to you ultimately, ultimately that which you received and what you gave evidence about regarding plans and aerial photographs and so forth, could only have been the Security Police's file regarding the Ribeiro's, would you agree with me?
MR NAUDE: I agree completely. It is disputable that the Security Police would give their source reports and everything to me, they would have given me an extract from that file.
MR DU PLESSIS: So I am just trying to avoid confusion here because I think that the information that was created from your evidence was that you had the complete file from the Security Police and it does not appear from your evidence, read along with Loots and Hechter's evidence that this was the case?
I am putting to you that it was probably an extract and you have confirmed this?
MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: How would he know whether the file he received was complete or not? He receives a file, he sees aerial photographs, street maps, photographs of the house and so on, now how would he know whether that file is complete or whether there are other documents that are supposed to be in it or not?
MR DU PLESSIS: No Mr Chairman, all I put to him is the evidence of the other witnesses that there were informant reports, etc, in the file, so the obvious deduction that one has to make out of that, and I just wanted his comment on that, is that what he received wasn't the full file.
That also accords with the evidence of Hechter.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Didn't he concede to that Mr Du Plessis? Didn't he concede to that yesterday, I mean he said he suspected that the file which was given to him, was not a full file, it was a very thin file, it had very little information.
In fact according to his evidence, it had no information at all, definitely not with regard to the activities of the Ribeiro's?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I just wanted to make it clear that it was obviously not the file of the Security Police, that is the only point.
CHAIRPERSON: Can we move on to material points of difference?
MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Is there anything else anybody wishes to put forward to Mr Naude? Any re-examination of Mr Naude?
ADV DE JAGER: Ms Lockhat and the representatives of the victims?
MS LOCKHAT: That is correct, we've got some questions for Mr Naude.
CHAIRPERSON: You have?
MS LOCKHAT: Yes Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, please do put your questions.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Mr Naude, you informed us that you briefed either the Staff Officer or Joubert regarding the operation, as to find the two persons in Angola, is that correct?
MR NAUDE: Yes, it was either the General or Staff Officer, to find the people in Namibia, not Angola.
MS LOCKHAT: Oh Namibia, sorry. Tell me, who was the Staff Officer at the time?
MR NAUDE: There were four Staff Officers operating at the time, the most likely one would have been Mr Verster.
MS LOCKHAT: So, do you think that Mr Verster could have organised the two operatives?
MR NAUDE: It could be possible, yes.
MS LOCKHAT: Would Gen Joubert be able to help us with that information?
MR NAUDE: I am not exactly sure. I don't know if he would ...
MS LOCKHAT: Tell me, for this operation to take place, the operatives surely had to be given weapons, etc, etc. Is this correct?
MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairperson.
MS LOCKHAT: Who gave them, what was given to them and who gave it to them?
MR NAUDE: As far as I know, Robey gave them the weapons. I am sure that this would emerge very clearly from his evidence.
MS LOCKHAT: Do you know which weapons were given to them, was it 9mm's, was it 357 revolvers, what was it?
MR NAUDE: It was 45 Colt pistols Mr Chairperson.
MS LOCKHAT: Are you sure about that?
MR NAUDE: Yes, I am sure.
MS LOCKHAT: I just want to refer to the evidence of Van Jaarsveld, page 73 of Bundle 4, where he says I saw that there were 9mm shells on the scene. It was strange to me seeing as my information was that a 357 revolver would have been used?
MR NAUDE: Chairperson, we didn't use 9mm pistols, because usual Defence Force used 9mm's, we used the Colt pistol.
Both pistols had silencers and there is no way in which one could fit a silencer onto a 357 revolver, it couldn't be done.
MS LOCKHAT: So do you think that Van Jaarsveld's evidence is incorrect that he saw these?
MR NAUDE: Definitely so, yes.
MS LOCKHAT: Tell me, were these two operatives paid for this mission?
MR NAUDE: No, they were paid soldiers, they received a salary every month and they did it in the course of their duties.
MS LOCKHAT: Okay, you spoke about the Palm Hotel, is this where you met Hechter and others?
MR NAUDE: That is correct.
MS LOCKHAT: Can you remember where the two operatives were housed, in which hotel?
MR NAUDE: Later I heard that Robey and the others took them to a hotel near the station, I think it was the Manhattan Hotel, I am not quite certain about that.
MS LOCKHAT: So they did not reside at the Palm Hotel?
MR NAUDE: No, definitely not. That was just a point for us to get together.
CHAIRPERSON: It is quite clear from your evidence that the one who will know more definitely, will be Robey? Is that right?
MR NAUDE: Chairperson, could you please repeat that question.
CHAIRPERSON: The one who will know more definitely about where they were housed, would be Robey?
MR NAUDE: That is correct Chairperson.
MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR NAUDE: Chairperson, I would just like to address the problem surrounding the black operatives. Firstly, just like MK, we worked with code names, this has emerged from other evidence which was given here. Furthermore, we used these persons, we had them flown in from Ovamboland and we employed them to commit a murder in reality.
That is why we had to protect the identity of these persons as far as possible. I had a very high profile in Special Forces and I was very concerned for this reason, that these people would see me, because everybody, almost all the operatives, knew me.
That is the reason why I sent Robey to fetch these persons in order to make the operation as untraceable as possible. Should one of these operatives be caught on the scene or be injured on the scene, he could simply refer back to somebody who had taken him and booked him into the hotel and he would at least be able to use this person's code or false name.
That would indicate that this operation should not be traceable. We had to protect these people, we couldn't advertise that these people were driving around all over in military vehicles and so forth.
For that reason, we handled them with extreme caution, and that is why I would not allow that Hechter would point out the place to them because it would have defeated the object, to take these people so far and then contaminate them at the very last point.
I hope that the Commission will understand this somewhat better.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you get a chance to meet them yourself?
MR NAUDE: Due to the fact that I had a high profile, I never met the - I actually saw them driving passed, but I never met them face to face.
CHAIRPERSON: To your knowledge, besides Robey, who met them?
MR NAUDE: Of my Unit, nobody met them.
ADV DE JAGER: If they had seen you, would they have recognised you?
MR NAUDE: I didn't know exactly who would be coming, and I was very cautious that it may be someone who would recognise me, because I was the Commander of various of these units, the chances were extremely good that they would have recognised me and said that is not Jan Botha, that is Charl Naude.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes please, any further questions.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR POWE: Mr Naude, you state in your application which you will find at page 21 of Bundle 4 and in particular paragraph 11(b)(i) and (ii), you state as follows, my Commander in the South African Defence Force was Gen Joubert from Pretoria. His address is unknown to me, he was the Commanding General, Special Forces.
Then you take it up later on, consequently I was under the command of Brigadier Jack Cronje of the Security Police, with regard to the relevant operations. His address is unknown to me.
Am I correct, you may answer me in Afrikaans, Mr Naude, am I correct in saying that the involved operations which you refer to here, would be the ones in respect of which you are seeking amnesty?
MR NAUDE: I think that was an error in my affidavit, I was in support of and not in command of. Under command would have indicated that Brigadier Cronje would have paid my salary and handled my administration and so forth, and that was not true.
MR POWE: (ii) you go on to say and you must tell me whether you think that also was a mistake in your application, in both cases I received the orders for the deeds from Cronje, but I did clear it up with Joubert, who confirmed the order and expressed his approval for that.
MR NAUDE: Chairperson, I think the milieu within which that statement was made, is as follows, Brigadier Cronje was a Brigadier and I was a Commandant at that stage.
I think that I accepted that he would be the Senior Officer in company and for that reason, I felt that it was his order or that he was the initiator of this operation.
But after we had discussed it at length, I realise that it was actually a joint decision which had been made. This affidavit was made quite a while ago and now that I have been through the process, I realise that that was an incorrect statement.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Did I understand you correctly when you said you thought Brigadier Cronje was an initiator of the operation? The reason why I am posing this question is because it causes me problems.
It would not be in accord with your evidence in chief, which was to the effect that you were instructed by your Commander, Gen Joubert about this operation. How could you have thought that Brigadier Cronje was the initiator of this operation?
MR NAUDE: Chairperson, I think that we should just return to the very first day when this operation began, and by that I mean the co-operation with the SAP. The Generals gave me the order to cooperate with specific reference to two projects, the one was the Nietverdiendt 10, which led to the Nietverdiendt 10, which did not exist at that stage.
It was people who were defecting to receive training, that was the one problem, and the second was the mentioning of the name of the Ribeiro's.
The Generals did not give me an operation saying, go and shoot the Ribeiro's and kill them. He told me you must look at these two operations, these are the two greatest problems which we have at this stage. After a lengthy process of the exchange of information and discussions with Brigadier Cronje, we decided that the first operation which we would undertake, would be the Nietverdiendt 10 which has been handled.
The second one was the Ribeiro's, and I don't think that I ever said that the General gave the order to undertake the operation, it is something which emanated from various meetings which were held. I did clear it up with the General, but I never received an order from him.
Perhaps I have misinterpreted who gave the order, we sat around a table and after various sessions of discussion, we finally decided that the following target to be handled, would be the Ribeiro couple. And after that I requested whether or not I could receive the information regarding these peoples that I could find the place and so forth, and continue with the operation.
I am not entirely certain if one would then say that I initiated it, or whether the Brigadier initiated it. I can't remember the specific words which were used that day, but the fact is that is how the operation originated.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you draw a distinction in your mind between an agreement that this operation should be embarked upon jointly on the one hand, and who initiates or implements the agreement? Do you draw that distinction in your mind?
MR NAUDE: If the fact that I requested the file, would indicate that I initiated the operation, then it must be so.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.
MR POWE: Thank you. Mr Naude, if you say that the statements in your applications, if the benefit of hindsight now, are mistakes, when did you first realise that you made these mistakes in your application?
MR NAUDE: Yesterday, during the testimony, Mr Chairperson.
MR POWE: You didn't mention that to this Committee that with regard to these specific paragraphs, where you give a very distinct impression that you were instructed by Brigadier Cronje to carry out these operations, you didn't take the opportunity out of your own, to correct what are clearly incorrect statements?
MR NAUDE: I think during the Nietverdiendt project or whatever one wants to call it, when we went into detail with regards to the command affiliation and how it worked and how I saw it, I accepted that the explanation that was given there, would be applicable here as well.
MR POWE: Mr Naude, with respect, that is the broad command structure that you would have alluded to in that context. These are very specific statements you make as to who in so far as these two operations are concerned, gave you instructions.
MR WESSELS: With respect Mr Chairperson, this was one of the statements that was dealt with and questions were put to him as to who was in charge and how this fitted in and he cannot make the statement as he is doing now.
We have already dealt with this incident yesterday.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, can we move on.
MR POWE: Thank you. The point I am making is that it was never stated that these two statements are mistakes.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand, that is a point you can address us on.
MR POWE: Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR POWE: Mr Naude, you say that the Ribeiro operation was jointly decided upon and I take it, it is by yourself and who else?
MR NAUDE: It was jointly decided by myself, Brigadier Cronje and Captain Hechter. They were normally always there, every now and then, he would call somebody else in just for a piece of information that he didn't have, but normally it was those people sir.
MR POWE: Yes, you see, I just wanted you to confirm that Mr Naude, because if that is what you are saying, then it doesn't seem to accord with what Brigadier Cronje says at page 500.
On a proper reading of his evidence here, and it was put to you earlier on by Adv Du Plessis, the distinct impression is that this was your unit's operation, and he had absolutely nothing to do with it, and you can have a look at that evidence which is at, his evidence starts at 499 and he carries on at 500 of Bundle 2(B).
MR WESSELS: Chairperson, my learned colleague should make the statement to my client. I don't think it is required of him to make comments on pages.
What is the specific difference to which is being referred to? We have already dealt or covered this incident yesterday. My learned colleague, Mr Du Plessis, has referred to it this morning.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Wessels, he was not here yesterday, so let us not split hairs about this. He deals with the aspect which I put yesterday that according to Cronje, he was not the person who gave the instruction to kill the Ribeiro's.
His evidence, Cronje's evidence differs from his and the question that we dealt with yesterday was that if it was an Army operation, it was pointed out that before the Army came to launch the operation, Hechter had already launched two operations to kill the Ribeiro's, so where did that instruction come from.
Since he was not here yesterday, the first meeting, there was a first meeting between Gen Joubert, Cronje and Moller and it was said there that according to the evidence, there were three targets. The one was a class type of target, people who would go out for training, the one was Ntuli and the other one was Ribeiro.
This is not in line with Cronje's evidence and you were not here yesterday. That was what was said yesterday.
MR POWE: Chairperson, obviously to the best of my ability, I have familiarised myself with the evidence that was given. I don't think that the objection is justified.
The proposition which I am putting to Mr Naude is quite clear. He says that it was a joint decision between himself, Brigadier Cronje and I think it was Captain, Captain Hechter.
ADV DE JAGER: I think the objection was that you referred to pages 500 and you don't put the contents of what your question is, to the witness.
MR POWE: Mr Naude, on the basis of that objection then, at page 500, this is how Brigadier Cronje testified - I asked Charl Naude for what purposes he needed the memorandum and he answered that Special Forces targeted Ribeiro or had identified him as a possible target.
I told him that if they had identified him as a target, they surely had to have information of their own, and why did they need a memorandum from me, and he replied that he only wanted to verify the information to ascertain whether we had the same information as what they had.
Further on in the page, Mr Naude, if you care to look at it, if you have the bundle in front of you, I was therefore aware of the operation since it was, or since I suspected that it was a terrorist operation. I did not interfere with the preparations any further.
On the reading of that bit of information Mr Naude, Brigadier Cronje says he wasn't part of the decision. He says that it was your Unit's decision to do this, and you went to him, seeking information so you could carry out that particular operation, what do you say to that?
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, I think that it was a terrorist operation, was clearly a misinterpretation or - it should have been a Special Forces operation, not a terrorist operation.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, in all fairness, may I just point out, the evidence, it is again a question of taking the evidence at a specific place and page and putting that without putting the rest of the evidence.
I have pointed out this morning, in my questioning to Mr Naude, that Brigadier Cronje testified that he didn't know where the order came from in respect of the Ribeiro's, but that the decision may have been made at TREVITS.
Now, one should also take that evidence into account when you look at what Brigadier Cronje says here. It is not a question that Cronje testified that Special Forces made the decision.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Du Plessis, that could be a matter for argument for you, but Cronje used the words that has been put to the witness and the Counsel is entitled to put that to the witness and ask him to answer on it.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Powe, page 355 which is Bundle 2(E) wherein this particular aspect is dealt with by Brigadier Cronje, where he was cross-examined by Mr Currin, there is cross-examination by Mr Currin, thank you Mr Chairman. Brigadier Cronje, you start your evidence by saying Special Forces requested the memorandum on Dr Ribeiro from me, did you know why they wanted the memorandum and Brigadier Cronje's response is, as far as I can recall, they told me that they, Special Forces, have identified Dr Ribeiro as a target.
Which clearly therefore, makes the identification of the target to have been made by Special Forces.
MR POWE: It is indeed so, Honourable Member. Mr Naude, do you have any comment on those obvious contradictions?
MR NAUDE: As I have said yesterday, this was the first time that I had heard of Ribeiro, was at the start of this operation.
I could have only heard the name at two places. I said that I heard it from the General once, and repeatedly from the Security Police. If I refer to the Security Police, I refer to Colonel Cronje and Captain Hechter.
I could not identify this target on my own, if I did not know of the existence of this person. I repeat, we were together, we discussed other targets as well to which I said it did not comply with the requirements which the General put to me for example, they would not have had any impact on the situation in Northern Transvaal, they were not high profile persons, but eventually the Ribeiro target stood out as the target to be targeted next. This was not decided on with the input of the Security Branch persons.
I cannot think of where else I could have received this information. Other evidence was led that we did not have an internal Intelligence Unit except for where it came to strategy or tactical units.
I would just like to put that it was impossible to target this person without the help of the Security Police.
MR POWE: Mr Naude, if what you say is correct, then someone is not, or has not told this Committee the truth.
MR NAUDE: I just think that one - I realise that there is a problem somewhere and I think that the following might be an explanation. I am not sure if the identification that the Brigadier mentions there, was the identification of the execution of the operation, not as the target, but it was identified as an operation that could be executed.
Let's say some of these operations could not be launched against them. I can just think that the Brigadier meant that this was an operation that could be executed, and it would seem, or from the evidence I said that I was looking for the file so that I could start with the preparations for the operation.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Naude, Brigadier Cronje gave evidence to the effect that when you requested for the file, you advised him that you wanted the file because you were doing preparations for Gen Joubert. Would you agree with that, and that appears on page 502 of Bundle 2(B)?
MR NAUDE: At any time when I approach the General with such a target, he would have asked me you tell me, is this target worth it? Therefore I had to have the information and I was certain that if I went to him with this target and I said we want to continue with this target, he would have asked me three questions.
He would have asked is secrecy guaranteed, secondly, would it have an impact on the environment and will you do this in conjunction with the SAP? He would have asked that, I had to prepare myself for when I spoke to him. I had to have all my pigs in a straight line otherwise he would ask me, go back and find out what is happening and then you come back to me.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I don't think you understood my question. My question is, did you at any stage during your discussion with Brigadier Cronje, advised Brigadier Cronje that you were doing preparations on the Ribeiro's at Gen Joubert's instance and request?
MR NAUDE: No. Gen Joubert never requested me to do that and I never instructed him that Gen Joubert asked for this target to be done, I never did that.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So you would not agree with the evidence given by Brigadier Cronje with regard to that particular aspect?
MR NAUDE: Mr Chairman, I want to refer you to my first statement, I said in the end that there are certain things that I disagree with, and this is one of the points that I disagree with.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, thank you. Proceed Mr Powe.
MR POWE: Mr Naude, from what I understand your evidence to be, you personally knew nothing about the activities of the Ribeiro's?
MR NAUDE: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR POWE: And you relied on the say so I think firstly of Gen Joubert, do I have his rank right?
MR NAUDE: I relied on the Intelligence from Brigadier Cronje.
MR POWE: From Brigadier Cronje?
MR NAUDE: That is right.
MR POWE: Yes. Now if that is the case, at the point when you had discussions with Brigadier Cronje, it seems like if one looks at the evidence again at page 500, and that is the instance when you go and ask for a memorandum, that there is no mention of Mrs Ribeiro there?
MR NAUDE: All the evidence that was given to me, was always both the Ribeiro's, the man and the wife. In all instances they were grouped together.
MR POWE: Well, I don't know whether that is necessarily so and again we have the difficulty of knowing who of you is reflecting what the true position was.
Brigadier Cronje says at the top of that page, I asked Charl Naude for what purpose he needed the memorandum and he answered that Special Forces, that is yourselves, had targeted Ribeiro or had identified him as a possible target.
MR NAUDE: I disagree with that statement. I say that Mrs Ribeiro was always within the target, she was never left out. As a matter of fact, when the General briefed me the first time, he also told me that they were both involved in certain activities.
MR POWE: Those that you get to deal with, seems to have had some definite doubts about Mrs Ribeiro, including Brigadier Cronje?
MR NAUDE: I can't stand in for what he thought, I can stand in for what the General told me and the general information that I got, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Powe, and Hechter's evidence also included Mrs Ribeiro and Loots' evidence too? Yes Loots.
MR POWE: Not quite so in respect of Hechter Honourable Member. Hechter at a point in his evidence and I will find it if you give me a second, says that there was doubt in his mind at a point, whether Mrs Ribeiro ought to have been targeted.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: No, he states quite clearly Mr Powe that Mrs Ribeiro was targeted because she assisted the activists to the extent that Dr Ribeiro assisted the ANC activists. I think it is quite clear there should be no reason for you to argue about that one. Hechter was very positive about that aspect.
MR POWE: Honourable Member, if you have a look at page 461 of the transcript of Captain Hechter's evidence, in Bundle 2(E), if at the point that was clear as you say, certainly at a later stage he seems to have doubts. That is the very last paragraph.
I think that Charl Naude and I went to my office to continue with this conversation. At that stage I had already come to the conclusion that Dr Ribeiro and his wife had to be eliminated, and then a significant part, or perhaps just Dr Ribeiro.
MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, with respect to my learned friend, he should read on page 477 what Captain Hechter said. He said there for instance if I had executed the operation, I would also have killed her.
He said I think as a result of her activities, she would have been targeted by the Defence Force, and then I am trying to find the paragraph that Judge Khampepe referred to because I read it this morning, was a specific paragraph, I think but it was the evidence of Loots, not Hechter, which said that when Dr Ribeiro was away from the house, he wasn't there, she was also involved in assisting people financially, etc. I will try to find that paragraph for you.
CHAIRPERSON: Let us assume that might very well have happened is that at times the Ribeiro's in plural, were mentioned, at times Mr and Mrs Ribeiro were mentioned, but the fact of the matter is that as it turned out, they were both targeted.
Can we move on from that point, onwards? Does it matter very much whether originally one name was mentioned and later both names were mentioned? Does it really matter?
MR POWE: It matters Chairperson and I will try to demonstrate that. I will not be much longer, I promise you. I will try to demonstrate it with my subsequent questions.
Mr Naude, the people on whose intelligence you relied, let me just give you, tell you, what it is they relied upon to make Mrs Ribeiro a legitimate target and this is in the evidence of Captain Hechter which starts at page 457 and this is the extent of the Intelligence they had at their disposal.
According to our sources at the time, Mrs Ribeiro was involved along with her husband in the recruitment of youths for sending them out for training. It was also known that they gave money to these people.
Dr Ribeiro and his wife, who obviously never distanced herself from this conduct, and was always involved with him in showing of the videos for instance, our information was that they were both involved in the showing of the videos.
Now would that in your mind, make Mrs Ribeiro a legitimate target for elimination?
MR NAUDE: I think in total we had about 25 meetings approximately, 25 meetings with the Security Police. During the time, and I am talking about the time when the General instructed me to cooperate with the Police, to the time when this operation stopped, and I don't think there was one meeting that the Ribeiro's were not mentioned.
Examples of this was that it was put to me that this weekend they did it again, they went to Swaziland and they did this, that and the following. I can't stand in for the truth of that, I believed that the Brigadier who is an officer and a gentleman, wouldn't give me information that is not true.
I never questioned the information. It came in regularly and eventually there was no doubt in my mind that these people were targets. That was not the only evidence that was ever put to me, there was lots and lots of evidence that was put to me during the course of those meetings.
MR POWE: Well, the difficulty with that statement you make now, Mr Naude, is that we have not heard such evidence. We heard you putting four broad categories namely that they train activists, namely that they give financial assistance to them and two other aspects in which they were involved, but the detail that you now seek to put before the Committee, you never up to now, put before this Committee, or did you?
MR NAUDE: Chairperson, we repeatedly said yesterday that we discussed this thing many times, Hechter, myself and Cronje. Several times we had meetings and we discussed this several times. I cannot put it any better, that is how it is.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Naude, I would like to understand your evidence better, myself. I don't want to misunderstand you.
I thought in your evidence in chief, your evidence mainly was that there was a meeting that you had between yourself, Captain Hechter and Brigadier Cronje wherein a joint decision was taken to target the Ribeiro's. I was under the impression that that was the only meeting wherein Brigadier Cronje was involved, and that the subsequent meetings that took place, did not involve Brigadier Cronje, but took place between yourself, Mr Robey and Captain Hechter?
When you say there were 25, approximately 25 meetings that took place wherein the Ribeiro's were discussed and you include Brigadier Cronje in those meetings, then I fail to understand your earlier evidence.
MR NAUDE: Chairperson, what I mean with this is the following, at every such meeting many people were mentioned, amongst others the Ribeiro's. At one meeting we sat down and we said we think this is an operation we can execute, we can continue with the operation.
At that meeting I requested the information, where does he stay, the maps, the aerial photographs. But on a continual basis, we discussed these things. This was not at one instance, we discussed it many times.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Did those meetings include Brigadier Cronje?
MR NAUDE: Just about every time at that meeting, I saw Brigadier Cronje. I can recall once or twice when we did not see him. This was just when he was not available, but I called and I made an appointment with him and his Secretary told me such and such a time, and then I met with him.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So you actually had several meetings with Brigadier Cronje where the activities of the Ribeiro's were discussed with him?
MR NAUDE: That is correct Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: We will take an adjournment at this stage, and resume in 15 minutes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
CHARL NAUDE: (s.u.o)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Powe, have you finished with this witness?
MR POWE: I have finished, Chairperson, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR POWE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions?
MR WESSELS: In re-examination, I would just like to ask a few questions, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it for a while. Anybody else? Yes, do carry on.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Naude, can you explain to us you told us that 25 meetings took place approximately, meetings that you can recall with Brigadier Cronje. Were these meetings which were generally about the security situation or were they about specific matters?
MR NAUDE: These meetings, we must remember, that I was deployed in support of the Security Branch at that stage, and I had no other tasks. Thus we co-operated and I held various of these meetings and various topics arose.
We followed certain clues and reported back every day regarding things that we had discussed, things that needed to be investigated, and among others the Ribeiro matter emerged quite a few times, but many other matters were also discussed during these meetings.
MR WESSELS: Is it correct that only at a later stage it was specifically decided that the Ribeiro's could now be identified as a target and that execution had to be given to an elimination plan?
MR NAUDE: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: And was that at the stage when the memorandum was requested by you?
MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct.
MR WESSELS: You mentioned that secrecy was to be maintained with regard to these matters. When operatives were obtained such as in this matter, two operatives, did you use false names?
MR NAUDE: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: Did Robey use his correct name or which name would he have used when he dealt with these persons?
MR NAUDE: He had instructions to use his false name.
MR WESSELS: And do you know whether these two operatives used their true and correct names?
MR NAUDE: Chairperson, it is highly unlikely, but I cannot confirm this, because I did not have anything to do with them.
MR WESSELS: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WESSELS
CHAIRPERSON: Who did you make a request to for these operatives?
MR NAUDE: The request was directed to either the General or one of the Staff Officers. I cannot recall which one of the two.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you make a request for specific persons?
MR NAUDE: No Chairperson, I requested two operatives from Ovamboland who had drivers' licences. Those were my only specifications.
I also requested that they would be some of the best operatives, by the nature of the situation.
ADV DE JAGER: When you speak of an operative, and a good or a best operative, would that be one that could shoot?
MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: Not a chef in the kitchen?
MR NAUDE: Certainly not.
CHAIRPERSON: Now was there a time when you knew the name of the person to whom you had made this request?
MR NAUDE: Chairperson, I cannot recall who it was. I could never recall it.
ADV DE JAGER: But the question is, you knew that you were speaking to somebody that day, so at that stage if I had asked you the next day, you would have known that you were speaking to X or Y?
MR NAUDE: Probably. The problem is, the reason why I am saying this is because I spoke to both persons frequently but I cannot remember during which discussion, this topic arose.
I spoke quite frequently to the General, gave him feedback about what was going on, and I often spoke to the Staff Officers. I simply cannot recall during which discussion I directed the request for the operatives.
ADV DE JAGER: But the General would have known if it had been directed at him, he would probably be able to tell us if he had anything to do with the arrangements?
MR NAUDE: He would probably know then.
I have reason to believe that the General himself would not have arranged it, he would have involved one of the Staff Officers and said get two people over here.
CHAIRPERSON: This becomes more and more difficult when one tries to trace the source and one finds that one can't pinpoint the person in authority who sends these people, because it is important from the point of view of your application, and you should know this, that you are required to make a full disclosure of all the relevant facts.
It is with that in mind, that I am asking you these questions.
MR NAUDE: Chairperson, I realise this fully. I cannot think that I would tell you everything and then something which was not under my influence, be kept from you. I just cannot recall. Perhaps one of the two gentlemen would be able to solve the problem.
I simply cannot distinguish which one of the two it was. It is impossible for me.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on with the re-examination.
MR WESSELS: I have no further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WESSELS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Naude, may I come back to the problem which I had yesterday with regard to the purpose for which the file was requested from Brigadier Cronje.
Yesterday you testified that the purpose of obtaining the file from Brigadier Cronje was only to enable yourself to obtain information pertinently with regard to the address of the Ribeiro's, do you remember that?
MR NAUDE: That is correct yes.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. Now Brigadier Cronje has already testified. He has advanced a different reason from that advanced by you, with regard to the purpose for which the file was obtained by you, from him.
He says that you told him that you wanted the file because you wanted to verify the information which they had in their file, against that which you had in your files from Special Forces.
MR NAUDE: Chairperson, once again I want to make it explicitly clear that we didn't have any internal information and thus we didn't have a file on Dr Ribeiro. We didn't have a file on Mrs Ribeiro either.
The only information which we had, was from the Security Branch and the purpose behind obtaining the file, was primarily to obtain the photo's of the house and the aerial photo's. That was the purpose with the file.
We wanted more information so that should the General ask me, I would be armed with the correct information. But the fact remains the primary reason why I wanted it, was to be able to identify the house from ground level and to show the operatives this is what the house looks like.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. I also have another difficulty with your evidence against that already given by Brigadier Cronje with regard to the activities of the Ribeiro's.
You will recall what you have already testified, that one of the reasons why they were targeted, was because they were involved in the actual training of the activists in their house.
MR NAUDE: That is correct Mr Chairman.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Brigadier Cronje and Captain Hechter have testified that the reasons why they were targeted was because they provided medical assistance as well as financial assistance. They have made no mention of the fact that they actually trained the terrorists in their house.
They would have had that information, they have the logistical necessities and the other resources which you have already alluded to.
MR NAUDE: I have repeatedly heard that the Ribeiro family travelled to Swaziland, took people there, had them receive retraining and would bring them back on a Sunday.
The reason why they were able to do so was because he had a high profile, he was Dr Ribeiro and it was easy for him to travel through border posts and roadblocks.
He had that cover and he used that cover to take people out for instant training. It was pertinently stated to me that he went as far as providing training within his home and that he treated wounded MK members in his consulting rooms. That was information that I gathered over time. That is what I received from the Security Branch, from nowhere else.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And that would have been the information that you would have gleaned through from the files of the Security Police? Is that not so?
MR NAUDE: Could you just repeat that please?
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: That information with regard to them providing training within their house, would have been the information you obtained from the files of the Security Police?
MR NAUDE: That was verbal information that was given to me, that wasn't given in writing to me. It was given verbally on these meetings that we had, it came out.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Who gave that kind of information to you?
MR NAUDE: Hechter on many occasions, gave it to me. Cronje gave it to me and I know somebody else, he called somebody else, a person whom I do not know, and he also gave bits and pieces of information, but he left immediately afterwards.
It was clear to me that this person wasn't briefed exactly what was going on, so he was immediately dispersed and he wasn't allowed to listen to the rest of the conversation.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But isn't it strange that the two persons that you are speaking of, that is Captain Hechter and Brigadier Cronje, gave detailed evidence with regard to the activities of the Ribeiro's, in fact they use a term, they gave us an explanation of who qualified to be a high profile activist and gave the activities that would qualify such a person to be a high profile activist.
They did not mention the fact that the Ribeiro's qualified as high profile activists, because they trained terrorists in their home. Why should they omit such an important fact?
MR NAUDE: Mr Chairperson, I really can't tell why they didn't put it in their application, but they definitely told me that on several occasions.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: To your knowledge, was Dr Ribeiro and Mrs Ribeiro trained in the military field, did they possess the necessary military skills?
MR NAUDE: Yes, definitely. They told me that they went for training themselves, and now they are taking people out to be trained.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And were you informed that Mrs Ribeiro in particular, had gone for such training?
MR NAUDE: Yes, there were many women who went for such training.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And this information came from Brigadier Cronje?
MR NAUDE: That is right, yes.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You are aware that Brigadier Cronje has stated quite clearly before us that had he been aware that there was any intention of eliminating Mrs Ribeiro, he personally wouldn't have approved of that elimination?
MR NAUDE: That statement is definitely not - I can't agree with that, because there was never a separation of the two persons.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: That is quite strange, I just wanted to find out that, to be able to clear certain issues in my mind, because that last bit of evidence I cannot relate to. Your evidence and the one given by Brigadier Cronje in particular and to some extent, given by Captain Hechter, I cannot relate to what you are saying as opposed to what they have already stated to this Committee.
MR NAUDE: Mr Chairman, I can just say again that that was definitely given to me, both the people were always regarded as one target.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Were you ever told by Captain Hechter with whom you must have had several meetings, because he has already stated before this Committee that you came to him constantly for advice with regard to the planning of the elimination, were you ever told by him that he personally had made several attempts to eliminate Dr Ribeiro?
MR NAUDE: He never told me that.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: Was it ever told to you that videos had been displayed to young people by the Ribeiro's and by Mrs Ribeiro, in their garage?
MR NAUDE: I must say that I personally cannot remember that. I heard about the videos for the first time here, I had never heard about them before.
It may have been mentioned, and I may not have regarded it as important, but I can't remember.
ADV DE JAGER: But you did read that evidence was given by Loots and Hechter with regard to these videos?
MR NAUDE: That is correct, I did read that.
MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, may I ask a question relating to the questions that Judge Khampepe asked?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes please do.
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR WESSELS: Mr Naude, would you have executed this operation if you only had information that the Ribeiro's were providing military treatment, medical treatment to MK cadres who had been injured and showed videos in their home?
MR NAUDE: Definitely not. I also don't think that the General would have given his permission for it, it would definitely not have happened.
MR WESSELS: Was it your task to do this operation or was there never any problem from the beginning?
MR NAUDE: Because this operation was very sensitive, I was reluctant to do so. It took me quite some time before we agreed to execute this operation. I spent much time deliberating before I answered yes.
MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WESSELS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
